spoke50

I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on the Ultegra 6800 group and was wondering about the mid-compact size now available. I run a compact on a couple of bikes (34/50) with 11-25 and 11-28. I was thinking of going with the 36/52 since the bolt size is the same. I'm wondering if there would be much difference running a 36/52 with the 11-28 cassette. I like the idea of having the extra 2 teeth on the big ring, hehehehe.

qcpmsame 

Just to make sure, are you strictly asking about the tooth count on the chain rings and not crank arm length? (your title could misleading, sorry)

If its the chain ring counts, I'd say if you need the extra top end tha the 52 big ring offers then by all means got the mid-compact set up. That combination is becoming popular lately. Just make sure the higher ratios with all the cogs due to the 52 doesn't mess up your normal cadence is all I could find that might be a negative. I have loved going to the compact rings, a 50/36 and 11-26 on the cassette. It gives me plenty of top end and with our relatively flat terrain here its is plenty fine for any climbing I have to do.

Bill

John E

I currently run 47/13 (98 gear inches), 50/14, 49/14, and 45/13 on my road bikes and 48/12 (104) on my mountain bike. 104 gear inches is also the highest top gear I have ever run on a road bike, and it has always been plenty for me.

spoke50

Whoops, yes tooth count. My size is 170. Not sure I want to jump up to a standard 53/38 this late in life but this new Mid-compact sounds nice. The nice thing is the bolts are the same on the compact and the standard from what I can tell, so I guess that means you can change it out without a problem.

tony2v

I just changed from a Campy Record 53x39 to a Campy Record 52x36. I didn't change the 11 speed cassette 12x27. I like that I still have gears when riding 30+ mph on the team training rides.

woodcraft

I know a guy who's just going that route.

Built like a line backer, you can barely stay on his wheel as he mashes a slight down grade,

then he'll catch up a couple of miles after he mashes up each hill.

This should extend his mashing range nicely.

DiabloScott

What possible changeout do you think you might want to do someday? From 36-52 to 34-50? Might make more sense to get the 34-50 crank now, and then add a 52 if you think you need it later... anybody shifting a 34-52? I'll bet it's not that bad.

Biker395 

That's hell of a good straight line ... but for once, I'm not biting. lol

Wileyrat

I'm still on my old steel Fuji with a 53/42 up front. I'm hoping to pull the trigger on a new bike next year, and I'm planning on a 52/36 on that one.

chasm54

I haven't ridden a 52/36. I have, however, a 50/36 and I much prefer it to the usual 50/34. The 34 ring seems to drive me into a lot of shifting at the front.

Black wallnut 

A mid-compact paired with an 11-28 at the low end will be near enough to your compact with the 11-25 for hills. FWIW this is my guess after running the numbers for 34x28 vs 36x30 and finding those to be nearly identical; after discovering that I was not timid at all to do my epic Labor Day ride that featured a climb with a part that was 2 miles of 11%+ grade with my CX bike and 36x30 as my climbing gear.

jppe

All I know is a 50-11 is plenty of top end gear for these old legs. In fact the only time I use the 50-11 is to speed up above 32 mph which usually gets me to the high 30 mph range. The only time I'm doing that is on the longer descents. I'm not sure I'd ever find a need for a 52-11 but I guess your terrain might be a little different or you have the power in the legs to push a gear that high. I suspect the key difference in a 50/34 vs 52/36 depends on the terrain where you plan to mostly use the bike. I could certainly see a 52/36 being a preferred setup for an area that is mostly rolling terrain.

Zinger

I've been topping out at about 95 gear inches for decades but that's just me. Some people wanna be able to hammer with fast people in the all out gear and the people I ride with aren't usually that fast (for long).

I like 'em where I personally use 'em. In fact my Trek 500 only tops out at about 88 gear inches nowadays with a 46/14. Everything under that is in my useful cruising range.

John E

It sounds like you and I are the only ones. It was not that long ago (1970) that 100 was the standard top gear -- even the Peugeot PX-10s came through with 52/14, although some Bianchis had 52/13 (108). I need a low around 43, and I like a 6 or 7 percent ratio progression with no big gaps, except possibly at the very bottom. With a 2x6 system, this limits how many high gears I can carry. Once I hit about 30 mph I just coast, anyway -- no desire to crash at 35 or 40.

I did try 52/16 (88) on a commuter, and that was not quite a tall enough top gear for merging into traffic for a left turn on a descent, but 96 seems to be fine for me.

Barrettscv 

It really depends on if you need the 34 small chainring for the hills in your area. If you can climb with a 36 chainring, I would recommend the 36/52. The 36 with an 11-28 will give you a very useful range on the small chainring and can be used up to 26 mph at a 100 rpm cadence. The 52 chainring ring will also give you tight cog spacing and a usefully range from 15 to 38 mph. If you have the power to weight ratio for fast rides, go for it.

Barrettscv 

You might have chain rub on the big chainring when cross chaining on the 34 chainring and 11 cog. That will destroy a chain.

Dudelsack 

Rumor has it that your crank size is legendary.

trailangel

I want to know WTF you think you are going to do with a 125 inch gear?
hehehe

John E

You, Zinger, and I are evidently the only ones asking this question. Everyone else seems to like a tall top gear.

I can sort of see the point if one wants to go fast without redlining on the cranks and if one has lots of gears to play with, but neither of these applies to me -- I have 11 usable gears (no large-large cross) on each of my road bikes and 18 to 20 on my mountain bike (3x8 1.5-step plus granny).

Trsnrtr

It's not the size of your crank but how you use it that matters.

See, I'm crass enough to say it.